3,408 karma · joined November 19, 2016
There is always a defense in court. This is not necessarily the defendant explicitly testifying. That's what I meant by the defendant making their case.
Justice can fail in the courts, I agree. But you can't have justice without (a) an authority with the power to judge, usually the state, and (b) a court proceeding where evidence is weighed.
If you say the UHC CEO killing was justice, then you must, to be consistent, allow for other such killings. Should all healthcare CEOs now be knocked off?
However, in civil law, for the state to kill someone it has to be done through the courts. There is evidence given on each side. Killing someone without this is not justice.
People talk as if it is so obvious UHC CEO was responsible for the deaths of many people but he never got to make his case. That's not justice at all.
But it is. Tyrants round up women and children and execute them. Healthcare is more complicated because you have multiple causes at play: the health conditions of patients, the hospitals and what they bill, and the insurance companies.
Money is a big factor here. People talk as if insurance companies should spend unlimited resources on every person. I understand the resentment over wealth inequality, but someone recently calculated that the top 4 billionaires could only support healthcare for everyone for 3 months. Money is not an infinite resource. Rationing is unavoidable.
But I get that there is a problem. Automatic denials and denials over treatments that have clear and significant benefits are a problem, absolutely. And the system could run more efficiently. But we also can't avoid death due to old age or sickness. Nor painless death.
But we can avoid murdering people in the streets in cold blood.
What I think happens is people who are very knowledgeable about a subject are hyper-sensitive to slightly incorrect information. And to boost their egos they like to diminish the people making the incorrect statements as not just incorrect, but confidently incorrect, a la Dunning Kruger.
See how confidently I made the exaggerative statement above? I don't necessarily mean it to be completely true, but I am making an argument. I think an assessment of confidence requires more than seeing no mollifying qualifiers like "I think" or "it might be". There's no verbal tone on the web.
Certainly I use these less than plain "ls," but digging through hidden files and folders and looking at timestamps is very important for me.
If you have a system you can reason about completely, then sometimes you have a number that gives the absolute answer. Say you get error below floating point resolution.
But I guess it's otherwise what is perceptible or meaningful, either in quantity or percentage. A penny is not a life changing amount of money and something happening 0.01% of the time is rare enough to be tolerable.
You model this by taking your signal and convolving it with the channel vector. Usually the channel vector is a finite number of dirac deltas. Each delta is a different reflection. They are like echos. They can cause the signal to constructively and desconstructively interfere with itself.
I haven't seen the math, but I am guessing this doesn't do as much to the frequency of the signal compared to the amplitude.
When I really need to use rm I type /bin/rm.
You have some really perverse incentives too if you allow loan forgiveness by the executive branch, something close to buying votes.
You could have made a fairer point if the IA only disregarded the copyright of authors who are dead or something like 10 years past publication.
Interestingly, it provided reference images and the images I posted were basically in the reference images.
See Lichess: https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz
Couldn't find this in Chess.com stats, but maybe they do some smoothing in their plot.
This only makes sense if you think poor people are dumb or naive. They don't know how to compare prices?
As other people have mentioned, sometimes the value is the amount you can buy. If your personal financial margins are small, it is okay to spend more per oz on a single bar of soap because it is the difference between having soap vs not.
We shouldn't assume cost per unit is the only value a store provides.